Minnesota court finds cracks in windshield-related DWI defense

It all basically started with a windshield. A crack in a Burnsville woman’s windshield prompted what has become a debated DWI and assault case. It’s gone through the district court and recently was heard and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

In 2009, the 34-year-old defendant was pulled over by an officer because he reportedly noticed that there was a significant crack on the driver’s windshield. After he pulled her over, an investigation apparently provided enough evidence to move forward with a DWI charge and more.

The defendant claims that she should not have been charged with or convicted of the charges because the officer didn’t have a reasonable reason to stop her. She says that the cracked windshield wasn’t enough to warrant being pulled over and investigated.

A district court disagreed with that theory. In March 2010, the defendant was found guilty of driving while impaired, including driving with a cancelled license and assault. The defendant and her legal team challenged the ruling, taking the case to appeals court.

The court recently affirmed the district court’s guilty verdicts. The majority agrees that the cracked windshield was a reasonable cause for the defendant to be pulled over. Minnesota law says it’s illegal to drive with a crack in one’s windshield that obstructs his or her view, giving the officer in this case a reason to stop the car and investigate.

But the defendant and the dissenting judge in the case emphasize that the officer couldn’t judge whether the crack was, in fact, obstructing the driver’s view of the road. Without that being true, therefore, he wrongfully pulled her over. Related to that doubt, the officer never even cited the defendant for the cracked windshield.

Unless the defendant takes this DWI case even higher up, however, the guilty verdicts against her still stand.

Though this case hasn’t ended favorably for the defendant thus far, it is still a good example of what can be an effective drunk driving defense. According to law, “An officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”

Source

Leagle: “State v. Oliveros,” Filed 16 May 2011

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

A Santa Clara University study shows that over one million people in Minnesota have criminal records. In Minneapolis alone, 5,713 crimes are reported annually within an area of 100,000 residents. These criminal cases require the defendants to present evidence challenging the prosecutor's narrative. So, when does the defense present evidence in a criminal case? Your defense team presents evidence at the trial phase right after the prosecution team completes outlining the facts it intends to prove and how its evidence will prove you guilty.
Media attention and public scrutiny after conviction can hurt your personal and professional reputation, especially if your criminal case is high-profile. One of the questions you may ask is: How do I handle media attention and public scrutiny after conviction in Minnesota? You can do that by familiarizing yourself with your rights, having a witness present during a media interview, minimizing media consumption, and taking a break from social media. Building a strong support system and working closely with a criminal defense lawyer can help you handle or minimize the impact of public scrutiny.
The timeline for filing pre-trial motions in a criminal case in Minnesota varies with the type of motion. A motion related to the discovery of evidence or dismissal of a criminal case must be filed at least three days before the Omnibus Hearing. The prosecution is then allowed to respond to the motions, and the court sets the timeline for these responses.